In its 2022–23 annual report, the corporate regulator revealed the statistics surrounding the four cycles of the examination it “successfully administered” from 1 July 2022 to 30 June 2023.
“ASIC continues to support the professional standards reforms introduced in 2017 to encourage higher standards of behaviour and professionalism for financial advisers,” the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) said.
“The examination is a key component of the education and training standards that all financial advisers must complete to provide personal advice on relevant financial products to retail clients.”
According to ASIC, 1,297 candidates sat the examination between 1 July 2022 and 30 June 2023. Among them, 628 sat the July–August 2022 examination, 282 sat the November 2022 examination, 192 sat the February 2023 examination, and 195 sat the May 2023 examination.
The pass rate was 52 per cent in the July–August 2022 examination, 57 per cent in the November 2022 examination, 67 per cent in the February 2023 examination, and 63 per cent in the May 2023 examination.
All examinations had a high number of resitters, namely, 76 per cent in the July–August 2022 examination, 57 per cent in the November 2022 examination, 60 per cent in the February 2023 examination, and 74 per cent in the May 2023 examination.
More than 20,500 candidates have sat the examination since it was first administered in June 2019, and of those, approximately 92 per cent have passed.
Over the 2022–23 financial year, ASIC said it continued to review the Financial Advisers Register to ensure it accurately reflects the status of financial advisers who did not pass the financial adviser exam.
More to come.
so – why is this not a requirement for all advice providers – ie no scope out for the industry super funds – you know the basis of the moral imperative?
What, apply the same standards?
Not sure what you mean – financial advisers giving intrafund advice today have the same FAR registration and eligibility requirements, including the exam and higher education, as any financial adviser. Are you talking about the QAR which is at this stage, just a proposal?
Yes, I believe I understand – Intra Fund Advice exists so that product manufactures change advise on product without the need for consideration to other messy issues like a better product?
Intra Fund Advice informed consent and all that – very clear? I guess the member could op out of paying if they don’t require this advice? Is that what FASEA is all about – ethics?